Imagini ale paginilor
PDF
ePub

That

been within the author's scope under certain circumstances. there is silence is an evidence that these circumstances do not exist. This argument is on the well-known popular principle that silence gives consent. If there were evidence to the contrary, it would certainly have been produced. A fine example of this argument is given by Bishop Lightfoot in his review of the author of "Supernatural Religion," in the Contemporary Review, xxv. 183, in treating of the silence of Eusebius. He quotes from Eusebius, H. E., iii. 3, to the effect that his design was to give (1) the references or testimonies in the case of disputed writings of the Canon only; (2) the records of anecdotes in the case of the acknowledged and disputed writings alike. If the Gospel of John had been a disputed writing, he would have given references and testimonies according to his first principle. He does not do this, therefore, "The silence of Eusebius respecting early witnesses to the Fourth Gospel is an evidence in its favor." Its apostolic authorship had never been questioned by any church writer from the beginning, so far as Eusebius was aware, and therefore it was superfluous to call witnesses.

(3) Silence is sometimes designed by the authors for good and suffi cient reasons, which may be ascertained; silence then proves a valid argument in accordance with the nature of the reasons.

In these cases, the matter came within the author's scope, and his silence may be shown to be intentional. This argument from silence has been the one most commonly employed. Thus Warburton, in his Divine Legation of Moses Vindicated, Lond., 1837, vol. ii. p. 531, argues, "If religion be necessary to civil government, and if religion cannot subsist under the common dispensation of Providence without a future state of rewards and punishments, so consummate a lawgiver would never have neglected to inculcate the belief of such a state, had he not been well assured that an extraordinary Providence was indeed to be administered over his people." This argument has been often disputed. Both premises have been called in question. There can be no doubt that the idea that "religion cannot subsist under the common dispensation of Providence, without a future state of rewards and punishments," rests on too narrow an induction of the religions of the world. There can be no doubt that Warburton is disposed to minimize the Old Testament statements as to the future life, and yet it seems to us that he is certainly correct in his statement that the Pentateuchal codes are silent as to a future state of rewards and punishments, and that this silence was designed. Warburton calls attention justly to Moses' familiarity with the Egyptian

religion and its highly-developed Eschatology. We have now abundant evidence to show that the Babylonian and Shemitic religions, with which the patriarchal ancestors were first brought in contact, were full and elaborate on this subject. The silence of these codes was designed. We are not convinced that this silence is to be explained altogether on the principle that the Hebrew government was a theocracy of extraordinary Providence; yet we are sure that it was the design of the Pentateuchal religion to emphasize life in the Holy Land under the divine instruction, and to ignore the future state of rewards and punishments on that account. The essential thing was the divine blessing in life, and the most dreaded thing was the divine curse in life. Indeed, it is the great lesson of Biblical Eschatology that the future life depends upon man's relation to God in this life. It is an evidence of great weakness in any religion to show extreme anxiety as to the future life. This was the worst feature in the Egyptian religion. The study of Biblical Eschatology, in its development in the Scriptures, makes it evident that in the entire course of Biblical history the other religions with which the Biblical religion was brought in contact were more elaborate in Eschatology than the Biblical religion. We also believe it to be a fact that the Eschatology of the Christian Church has derived its material very largely from other religions than the religion of the Old and New Covenants. Biblical Eschatology is much simpler than the Eschatology that has prevailed in the Christian Church. There can be no doubt therefore that the silence of the Pentateuch as to a future state of rewards and punishments was designed in order that the people of Israel might devote themselves entirely to the doing of the divine will in this life, and thereby receive the blessing or the curse in accordance with their deserts.

Archbishop Whately also uses the argument from silence from this point of view in his Essays on Some of the Peculiarities of the Christian Religion, 5th ed., Lond., 1846, Essay vii., and in his Kingdom of Christ, N.Y., 1859, p. 28 sq. He calls attention to the fact that "No such thing is to be found in our Scriptures as a Catechism or regular Elementary Introduction to the Christian Religion; nor do they furnish us with anything of the nature of a systematic Creed, — set of Articles, - Confession of Faith, or by whatever other name we may designate a regular, complete Compendium of Christian doctrines. Nor again do they supply us with a Liturgy for ordinary Public Worship, or with forms of administering the Sacraments, or of conferring Holy Orders; nor do they even give any precise directions

as to these and other ecclesiastical matters; anything that at all corresponds to a Rubric or set of Canons. And this omission is, as I have said, of a widely different character from the one before mentioned, since all these are things of manifestly practical utility, and by no means calculated to gratify mere idle curiosity" (Essays, p. 331, 332). He then argues that "since no one of the first promulgators of Christianity did that which they must, some of them, at least, have been naturally led to do, it follows that they must have been supernaturally withheld from it" (p. 349). "Each Church, therefore, was left, through the wise foresight of Him who alone knew what is in man,' to provide for its own wants as they should arise; to steer its own course by the Chart and Compass which His Holy Word supplies, regulating for itself the Sails and Rudder according to the winds and currents it may meet with " (p. 355). "It is very important therefore, and, to a diligent and reflective and unprejudiced reader, not difficult, by observing what the sacred writers have omitted and what they have mentioned, and in what manner they have mentioned, each, to form in his mind distinctly the three classes just alluded to, viz., First, of things essential to Christianity and enjoined as universally requisite; secondly, those left to the discretion of the governors of each Church; thirdly, those excluded as inconsistent with the Character of the Gospel Religion" (Kingdom of Christ, p. 34). This silence or reserve of divine Revelation is extended by Dr. Wharton (Silence of Scripture, Boston, 1867) so as to cover many things that we should like to know, as to the Creation of the World, the origin of evil, divination, the Virgin Mary, the personal appearance of Christ, as well as liturgy and creeds dwelt upon by Whately. Robert Hall has a fine sermon on "The Glory of God in Concealing" (Works, N.Y., 1857, iii. p. 310 sq.). Trench, in his Hulsean Lectures, 1845, Lecture vi., "On the Fitness of Holy Scripture," Phila., 1851, p. 120 sq., alludes to the same truth of the intentional silence or reserve of divine Revelation. We might illustrate this form of argument from silence from the human point of view of the Biblical authors rather than the point of view of the divine Author of Scripture, but it will come up incidentally under the next head, and we would save our space.

(4) Silence is often evidence of the ignorance of the author on the point in question. Here, again, it must be proved that the matter was clearly within the scope of his argument. This phase of the argument from silence is vastly important; upon it depends the Science of History. Of what possible use are historic records, unless they give

us information that we could not otherwise know?

How can we trace

the progress of events or opinions, except on the presumption that whatever occurs leaves its record, and whatever is known is in some way made known.

Where there is silence, we may assume ignorance as to the matter in question, and even find positive disproof of its existence. An event or an opinion might not be known to a particular person, or might be known to but a few, and these might perish. But it is to be presumed that those to whom the event or knowledge was known would make it known if it were within the scope of their argument. We prove the growth of knowledge from the silence of early writers and the statements of later writers. The statement of opinions give us the basis for the history of the opinions. Silence is an evidence of ignorance of them. Thus, Dr. Mombert (Handbook of the English Versions of the Bible, N.Y., 1883, p. 107 sq.) overcomes the tradition, handed down from Fox, and apparently supported by the Colophon of Tyndale's first edition of his translation of Genesis, "emprinted at Marlborow in the land of Hesse, by me, Hans Luft, &c.," that Tyndale was a student at Marburg, and went from thence to Hamburg by way of Antwerp, to meet Coverdale in 1529; by showing that there is no record at Marburg of Hans Luft ever having set up a printing press there, and that the Album of the University does not contain Tyndale's name among the matriculates, as it would if he were matriculated, in as much as it gives Patrick Hamilton and others; and there is an absence of historic evidence as to Coverdale's going to Hamburg. The constant argument of the great Reformers against the abuses of Rome was: Scripture is silent, and we cannot rest our faith on any doctrine or institution merely on the authority of the Church or tradition, when the Sacred Scriptures are silent' with respect to it. Richard Bentley in his celebrated work on the Epistles of Phalaris, London, 1699, uses the argument from silence to prove them to be forgeries, thus, "For had our letter been used or transcribed during that thousand years, somebody would have spoken of it, especially since so many of the ancients had occasion to do so; so that their silence is a direct argument that they never had heard of them." (New edition, 1883, p. 481.) The importance of this line of argument is greatly emphasized by the Roman Catholic scholar Du Pin, in his great work on Ecclesiastical Writers, Paris, 1694; Lond., 1696 (p. viii.). "The external proofs are, in the first place, taken from ancient manuscripts, in which either we do not find the name of an author or else we find that of another; the more ancient or correct

they are, the more we ought to value them. Secondly, from the testimony or silence of ancient authors; from their testimony, I say, when they formally reject a writing as spurious, or when they attribute it to some other author; or from their silence when they do not speak of it, though they have occasion to mention it. This argument, which is commonly called a negative one, is oftentimes of great, weight. When, for example, we find that several entire books which are attributed to one of the ancients, are unknown to all antiquity. When all those persons that have spoken of the works of an author, and besides, have made catalogues of them, never mention such a particular discourse. When a book that would have been serviceable to the Catholics has never been cited by them, who both might and ought to have cited it, as having a fair occasion to do it, 'tis extremely probable that it is suppositious. It is very certain that this is enough to make any book doubtful, if it was never cited by any of the ancients; and in that case it must have very authentic characters of antiquity, before it ought to be received without contradiction. And on the other hand, if there should be never so few conjectures of its not being genuine, yet these, together with the silence of the ancients, will be sufficient to oblige us to believe it to be a forgery" (in l. c., p. viii.).

Many examples of this argument might be given, but we shall limit ourselves to the Old Testament Scriptures; some of these arguments will be found valid and some invalid. The validity depends upon the previous question whether the matter in hand really was within the writer's scope. Horne, in his Introduction (Vol. ii., p. 31, first edition), presents as an argument against the documentary hypothesis, "one objection, and we apprehend that it is a fatal one, namely, the total silence of Moses as to any documents consulted by him." This would be a valid and "fatal" argument if it could be proved that Moses must have mentioned the documents if he had used them. But this cannot be proven. It was not the custom of ancient authors so to do. It was only occasional, and it was not common or necessary.

It has been argued for many generations that Job must have been written in the Patriarchal age before the Mosaic legislation, on account of the silence of the book as to that legislation. The latest statement of that argument that I have seen is in a supplement to the article of Delitzsch on Job in the Schaff-Herzog Encyclopædia, 1883, ii., p. 1187. “Those who hold that the book of Job was written in a very early age, in the time of Moses, or even earlier, urge its unJewish tone and its general spirit, which indicate an early period of the race. The absence of all references, direct and indirect, to the

« ÎnapoiContinuă »